The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is “Sheer Absurdity”

[Locutus]

Says Prominent German Meteorologist

Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls was interviewed by Bettina Hahne-Waldscheck of the Swiss magazine “factum“.I’ve translated and summarized the interview, paraphrasing for brevity.


factum: You’ve been criticising the theory of man-made global warming for years. How did you become skeptical?

Puls: Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power.


factum ad nauseum:


The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is “Sheer Absurdity” Says Prominent German Meteorologist | NoTricksZone


oh, and also...from a genuine Nobel Laureate:


Nobel Prize-winning scientist says Obama is ‘dead wrong’ on global warming

Nobel Prize-winning scientist says Obama is ‘dead wrong’ on global warming | Fox News

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

There is an overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer yet a minority of researchers to this day not only claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer but it isn't hard to find the odd accredited researcher who even claims that smoking prevents cancer. Pretty rare that nonsense makes it into the MSM.

So when it comes to climate science who is Klaus Eckart Plus? What credentials does he have to support his claim because in the title they sure look good? What research activities is he involved in or has access to? What exactly qualifies him to make his supposed statement of fact?

Apparently he is a pollen forecaster. Yes, a POLLEN forecaster!

Search Results - Springer

Womp womp.

 

[captain morgan]

Suzuki specialized in watching fruit flies copulate... That doesn't stop the fear-mongerers from pretending that he is an authority on climate

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Suzuki specialized in watching fruit flies copulate... That doesn't stop the fear-mongerers from pretending that he is an authority on climate

Suzuki lived in a glass house that woefully lacked insulation. Suzuki was/is a spokesman though due to his Nature of Things fame and is a talking head for actual researchers and there in lies the difference.

 

[captain morgan]

'Actual research' demonstrates a variety of results, much of which does not support the climate change perspective.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

'Actual research' demonstrates a variety of results, much of which does not support the climate change perspective.

That's actually not true at all. In fact, almost all research suggests that CO2 is a problem for the climate and thus.....wait for it.....that is why almost all researchers and the institutions that support their work believe in anthropogenic climate change.

 

[captain morgan]

Anything in too high a concentration has the potential to be harmful, singling out CO2 is disingenuous.

On that note, considering that most life on Earth is carbon-based and therefore it is impossible to fully eliminate this hazardous element, what is the calculable balance or amount that is needed?

That said, as per the references to 'almost all researchers', you must mean the IPCC approved research that is so lovingly peer reviewed by the already true believers... If this 'research' had any merit, it would have been able to yield a raft of models and projections that didn't always fail

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Anything in too high a concentration has the potential to be harmful, singling out CO2 is disingenuous.

Not in the context of climate change or ocean acidification. With respect to ocean acidification there is no theory here only fact. The oceans have sucked up about 40% of what humans have emitted and their ph is changing because of it.

On that note, considering that most life on Earth is carbon-based and therefore it is impossible to fully eliminate this hazardous element, what is the calculable balance or amount that is needed?

Lots of rocks are carbon based too but they aren't being turned into a gas and released into the atmosphere as a GHG. As for what is acceptable to people and the plants of today I don't know. I do know that when we increase CO2 in nature there is a short term bump in plant growth until the nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil is used up then the plants go into decline. right now CO2 is higher than it has been for 20 million years by some estimates. There have been times in the earth's past when CO2 was higher but different plants and animals existed and going back farther, much of the planet such as the equatorial regions were uninhabitable. This is why you find dinosaur bones in the arctic and not the Caribbean.

That said, as per the references to 'almost all researchers', you must mean the IPCC approved research that is so lovingly peer reviewed by the already true believers... If this 'research' had any merit, it would have been able to yield a raft of models and projections that didn't always fail

"The IPCC is not the sole means of peer-review within climate science. As a matter of fact, the IPCC evaluates the already existing peer-review papers and then produces reports based on such evaluations. It's a shame that you dismiss peer-review. If you hadn't I would have pointed to several papers that suggest that the IPCC was not alarmist, and possibly even underestimated global warming." - Aithlin

 

[captain morgan]

Lots of rocks are carbon based too but they aren't being turned into a gas and released into the atmosphere as a GHG.

They are when they spew forth from volcanic eruptions or other significant geological events.... But you are assuming that only carbon can react with water to form an acid... Sad news for you on that front I'm afraid

As for what is acceptable to people and the plants of today I don't know.

No one does know, which begs a fundamental question; if the 'scientific community' that swears by AGW can't even define this fundamental parameter, what on Earth makes them capable of defining an even larger and more complex system?

right now CO2 is higher than it has been for 20 million years by some estimates. There have been times in the earth's past when CO2 was higher but different plants and animals existed and going back farther, much of the planet such as the equatorial regions were uninhabitable. This is why you find dinosaur bones in the arctic and not the Caribbean.

How could you possibly say this with any kind of conviction?

PS - the theory of Pangea and plate tectonics has a lot to do with why we find dino fossils where we do... Also, have they even looked in the Caribbean for them?... Makes the statement as per why we don't find them in the tropics fallacious

"The IPCC is not the sole means of peer-review within climate science.

Yeah, sure.. Just ask them, they will tell you all about how distanced they are from the issue... All the same, I suppose that you can point to the University of East Anglia.... They are pretty objective too

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

They are when they spew forth from volcanic eruptions or other significant geological events

According to the accepted estimates from volcanologists the combined total of carbon released by all the world's volcanoes both on the surface and underwater is approximately 200 million tonnes annually. This compares to CO2 released annually from fossil fuels at around 30 billion tonnes and growing.

Do the math. How do you square this peg?

.... But you are assuming that only carbon can react with water to form an acid... Sad news for you on that front I'm afraid

I'm assuming nothing. I am relaying a scientific fact: CO2 is cocking up the oceans. It is not a theory, it is not a projection. It is happening now. If you disagree show me research to the contrary or accept it as the scientific fact that most other educated people do.

No one does know, which begs a fundamental question; if the 'scientific community' that swears by AGW can't even define this fundamental parameter, what on Earth makes them capable of defining an even larger and more complex system?

Absolutely nothing at least from a definitive perspective.

It is all about the best theory science and research has at the moment and not being the type of douche who thinks some scientific fields are populated by conspirators. The science on any subject will continue to evolve as new observations and tests are recorded and reviewed. This doesn't mean in anyway the theory is inherently flawed. Take evolution, globally 95% of scientists subscribe to it while only 87% of US scientists do. In Canada 61% of the public believe in evolution while in the US it plummets to 32%. the theory is tweaked constantly as we learn more and few people of intelligence give much credence to creationists.

PS - the theory of Pangea and plate tectonics has a lot to do with why we find dino fossils where we do... Also, have they even looked in the Caribbean for them?... Makes the statement as per why we don't find them in the tropics fallacious

Areas of either Rodinia or Pangea that were equatorial largely lack fossil fuels and dinosaur bones formed during those periods. Do you agree or disagree?